Mass Shooting Season 2014 still going strong as four+ are wounded at Seattle Pacific University
474 replies, posted
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;45011252]Yes look at Australia! The bastion of great works when it comes to gun control!
Oh wait. They had a spike in normal crimes, have made laws to prevent bikers from having trade jobs, and the laws have hardly stopped people from getting firearms. It has actually opened up a new underground industry that manufactures far more dangerous weapons such as homemade bombs and automatic weapons.
How about China! Wait, they actually have the same issue as Australia... People are producing illegal firearms in a "gun smuggling region" and multiple events to show the success of gun control have had incidents in which mafia families organize mass-shootings inside of the events to terrorize the local population as well as the Police.
I fail to see any success. When people begin manufacturing items that are far more dangerous to the standard semi-auto or bolt-action, gun control has failed.[/QUOTE]
This is completely false.
Australia never suffered a crime spike after the gun ban, that is a gun-lobby myth. (which what a surprise, you are determined to believe)
[quote=The Economist]Opponents of gun controls may respond with familiar flurries of statistics. In Hartford, for instance, several pro-gun demonstrators cited the same talking point, claiming (falsely) that home invasion rates soared in Australia after that country banned the most powerful forms of guns in 1996, following a mass shooting. Actually, home break-in and robbery rates have fallen sharply in Australia since 1996, as have gun-death rates, with no corresponding rise in other forms of homicide.
The most recent Australian crime statistics may be found here, and set out the historical trends [URL="http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/{0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA}facts11.pdf"]clearly[/URL].[/quote]
[URL]http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2013/03/guns-and-mentally-ill[/URL]
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45011436]And fuck the first, and the 3rd, and the 5th, and all of them while we're at it.
If you can say "fuck this one" you can say that to any of them.[/QUOTE]
Yeah its not like laws should change over time.
[sp]Gay Marriage[/sp]
[sp]Racial Segregation[/sp]
[sp]Slavery[/sp]
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;45011328]Can someone please tell me what "mental health reform" means.
Cause whenever anyone talks about gun control being part of a solution people always pile on them and say "no fix mental healthcare instead. Never ever talk critically about guns" but then none of those people actually elaborate on how, exactly, they'd treat the abstract problem of "mental illness."
Mandatory mental health screenings for every American once a year? Prozac and Thorazine in the water supply? Correct me if I'm wrong but Elliot Rodger was seeing a therapist and that didn't magically inhibit his shooting. There are a number of things we can do, as a society, to help the mentally ill and keep some of them from turning to violence but shouting "mental healthcare" and then walking away whenever anyone talks about gun control won't help anything. "Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with guns" isn't actually any kind of solution...[/QUOTE]
Fixing HIPPA would be a big move in the right direction. Currently only you can make decisions about your healthcare and doctor-patient privilege prevents almost all information you share with your doctor from being relayed to other parties.
While this is all well and good for a sane person, HIPPA didn't really make any provision in case said person was mentally ill or challenged. The law treats them the same, which is bad because they can't reasonably be expected to make rational decisions like getting proper treatment, such as getting on anti-crazy drugs.
As it is now to get mentally ill people treated, usually relatives or the state have to have a long and expensive court battle that nobody wants to pay for to have the chance to revoke the medical rights from said person and give them to someone else capable of making those decisions in the best interests of said patient.
As for the doctor-patient privilege, the doctor is allowed to relay information about you to other parties (ie. the police) if they think you're a threat to yourself or other people, but this is rarely done probably due to the fact they're afraid of the possibility of lawsuits.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45011436]And fuck the first, and the 3rd, and the 5th, and all of them while we're at it.
If you can say "fuck this one" you can say that to any of them.[/QUOTE]
I'm [I]pretty sure[/I] most people have issue with the 18th amendment, but not the 21th amendment.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45011479]And any government who's going to say "yea you don't have the right to bear arms" anymore, can just as easily say "yea you don't have the right to free speech, or free protest".[/QUOTE]
You're getting way ahead of yourself
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45011479]And any government who's going to say "yea you don't have the right to bear arms" anymore, can just as easily say "yea you don't have the right to free speech, or free protest".[/QUOTE]
any government that can self-consciously look at its multi-century old laws and decide they're no longer relevant nor desirable is a good government
what you're describing is a weird, crazy, dogmatic government that clutches to shitty pieces of parchment like they have some greater meaning than the words wrote on them.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45011501]So.. the US government? Who has fervently represented corporate rights before civil rights? You act like the US government is acting in an average civilians interest. They arent.[/QUOTE]
and because of this you want absolutely no more change for the better?
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45011479]And any government who's going to say "yea you don't have the right to bear arms" anymore, can just as easily say "yea you don't have the right to free speech, or free protest".[/QUOTE]
And that government would very quickly get called out on its shit if it happened in one of the countries that has the right to protest and slag off your government.
Equating the ability to own weapons to the ability to openly criticise your government and officials is fucking stupid. Stop doing it.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45011521]I'd like change. That's why I want to keep my firearm.
Because it's a hell of a lot harder to tell armed protesters to go away, than it is to tell unarmed protesters to go away.[/QUOTE]
Oh great, another might makes right person.
No it's totally fine to use weapons to force ideals so long as they are your ideals.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45011494]You can always legally try to remove it. You'll just have to put it to congress to call a consitutional convention to vote to get rid of it, then the states have to agree to it, then it can be struck from the constitution.
Get started now, it'll be several lifetimes before you get it removed.[/QUOTE]
Nobody has to get rid of the second amendment. It just says "the right to bear arms... shall not be infringed."
Only a lunatic would insist that that means that citizens should be able to buy any kind of gun without any scrutiny. But the NRA, as huge and moneyed as it is, does just that; pushing back against any restrictions at all, whether they be restrictions on magazine capacities, weapon calibers, fire actions, waiting periods, etc.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45011528]Except these are all protected by the same "old piece of paper" that everyone suddenly criticizes when it comes to guns.[/QUOTE]
They are also protected by mere rationality. The ability to critique the government is very important for the democratic process. The ability to protest the government is important for the democratic process. Anybody with even the slightest inkling of political thought knows this. The ability to wield firearms is not important to the democratic process, and is largely redundant today due to how society has changed in the couple hundred years since that document was written.
Stop equating them. I don't give a shit if they are both on the same piece of paper, they are completely incomparable "rights".
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45011521]I'd like change. That's why I want to keep my firearm.
Because it's a hell of a lot harder to tell armed protesters to go away, than it is to tell unarmed protesters to go away.[/QUOTE]
I completely disagree.
There is absolutely no correlation world wide with firearm ownership and liberal democracy, infact some of the worst places in the world are awash with firearms.
You're more likely to have a misguided sense of security while you clutch your dumb non-military grade firearms than be able to prevent this fictional slide into fascism/communism or what ever the fantasy you guys have over there is.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45011588]Again, the constitution laid out how to strike and add amendments to itself, funnily enough, no-one has actually proposed striking it from the constitution.. I wonder why that is? Probably because not nearly as many people as the media would let you know, support gun control.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120731095634-declining-gun-ownership-chart-story-top.jpg[/IMG]
thank god you're a part of a backwards, old dying breed that is holding everything back and eventually the country can move on and join the rest of the civilised world
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45011576]The problem is is that the anti-gunners always use the term "compromise". It's not a compromise, my default state is being able to purchase weaponry, a "compromise" would be, "hey go get a background check, and you can have anything including full-auto weaponry". That's a compromise, instead we get "hey we're taking your ability to buy full autos, BUT DON'T WORRY, YOU CAN STILL BUY SEMI-AUTO'S.
Gun laws haven't EVER been a compromise, and that's why so many people are VEHEMENTLY against increasing them.[/QUOTE]
Why should we compromise over your ability to own tools designed with the destruction as their one and only purpose? Considering you can't go hunting with a good number guns as its inhumane, what other purpose than shooting at a range (why do you need the gun in your house/ on your person for this?) or shooting people (why would a criminal think a gun is required if their victims aren't heavily armed?) does personal ownership of active firearms have. How does it actually benefit the country and citizenry?
[editline]6th June 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45011588]Again, the constitution laid out how to strike and add amendments to itself, funnily enough, no-one has actually proposed striking it from the constitution.. I wonder why that is? Probably because not nearly as many people as the media would let you know, support gun control.[/QUOTE]
Or they're concerned about the fucking idiots with guns who'll start shooting the place up because they feel threatened? Remember that rancher dude recently? Totally in the wrong? Tons of militia dumbasses still showed up to "show that thar gubment who boss".
[QUOTE=Gentry;45011433]This is completely false.
Australia never suffered a crime spike after the gun ban, that is a gun-lobby myth. (which what a surprise, you are determined to believe)
[URL]http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2013/03/guns-and-mentally-ill[/URL][/QUOTE]
Yet their was an increase in kidnappings, sexual assault, and general assault. Their was also a massive spike in Robberies which went from 16,000 in 1996 to 26,000 in 2001, which is slowly coming down in time, but has small surges as well.
[editline]5th June 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=hexpunK;45011610]Why should we compromise over your ability to own tools designed with the destruction as their one and only purpose? Considering you can't go hunting with a good number guns as its inhumane, what other purpose than shooting at a range (why do you need the gun in your house/ on your person for this?) or shooting people (why would a criminal think a gun is required if their victims aren't heavily armed?) does personal ownership of active firearms have. How does it actually benefit the country and citizenry?[/QUOTE]
Why should we compromise then? We are not getting any benefits from this situation, and gun crimes are already on the decrease, gun control is not needed and is pointless at the current moment in time. The reason people are shouting for gun control is a silly survivor bias.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;45011610]Why should we compromise over your ability to own tools designed with the destruction as their one and only purpose? Considering you can't go hunting with a good number guns as its inhumane, what other purpose than shooting at a range (why do you need the gun in your house/ on your person for this?) or shooting people (why would a criminal think a gun is required if their victims aren't heavily armed?) does personal ownership of active firearms have. How does it actually benefit the country and citizenry?
[editline]6th June 2014[/editline]
Or they're concerned about the fucking idiots with guns who'll start shooting the place up because they feel threatened? Remember that rancher dude recently? Totally in the wrong? Tons of militia dumbasses still showed up to "show that thar gubment who boss".[/QUOTE]
I've never heard of a gun not being used in hunting because it is to inhumane. In my region you can't hunt with rifles because our terrain is flat, endangering those around, not because it isn't humane to the animal.
I own firearms, and worked at a gunshop, but my guns are for home defense, and never leave my bedroom. For me, it's hard to think about not having a gun in the home when potential home invaders would most likely be armed in my region. I have ADT home security, and live three blocks from a police station but their response time still isn't quick enough when I've had to call and I'd hate to have my families life in the hands of someone else. When you've had someone try and kick your basement door in at 2am you might reconsider where you stand.
[QUOTE=Ajacks;45011697]my guns are for home defense[/QUOTE]
I really ought to dig up that study that showed that people were more bothered about having a gun for home defence than a working fire alarm.
Really highlights the attitude problem.
I feel like I'm locked in a washing machine full of idiots and lunatics, and is stuck on the spin cycle.
[QUOTE=Gentry;45011719]I really ought to dig up that study that showed that people were more bothered about having a gun for home defence than a working fire alarm.
Really highlights the attitude problem.[/QUOTE]
There are always idiots. I for one have hardwired fire alarms and monoxide sensors hooked up to my home security system.
[QUOTE=racerfan;45010774]What's going on recently? I've heard about 4-5 incidents like this in the past two weeks alone. Three of them in the last two days.[/QUOTE]Gives news stations money. It's trending.
One person has died in hospital.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;45011610]Why should we compromise over your ability to own tools designed with the destruction as their one and only purpose? Considering you can't go hunting with a good number guns as its inhumane, what other purpose than shooting at a range (why do you need the gun in your house/ on your person for this?) or shooting people (why would a criminal think a gun is required if their victims aren't heavily armed?) does personal ownership of active firearms have. How does it actually benefit the country and citizenry?
[editline]6th June 2014[/editline]
Or they're concerned about the fucking idiots with guns who'll start shooting the place up because they feel threatened? Remember that rancher dude recently? Totally in the wrong? Tons of militia dumbasses still showed up to "show that thar gubment who boss".[/QUOTE]
can you come up with a practical solution to the problem?
because banning guns in the united states is a pretty fucking impractical thing to do.
if you want change to happen, it has to be [U][I][B]logistically possible[/B][/I][/U], and the [I][U][B]culture and the people have to be receptive to that kind of change, or else it will never, ever, ever work[/B][/U][/I].
[QUOTE=aydin690;45011188]The solution is simple, no citizen should be allowed to own guns. Fuck the 2nd amendment, it was written for a world that doesn't exist now. Just look at Australia.
Give people a year to hand in all of their weapons or else face imprisonment or other harsh punishments. Of course that's never going to happen because the average pro-gun american values their weekend hobby more than people's lives.[/QUOTE]
good fucking luck trying to ban guns in a country that has [B][I]millions[/I][/B] of guns spread across [B][I]10 million square kilometers[/I][/B], with a massive portion of that country containing people who will most [B][I]definitely[/I][/B] reject the laws in their entirety, the police department included.
the reason it worked in the UK and other countries is because the culture didn't necessitate them, the UK is a smaller land mass, and there weren't many among the civilian populace in the first place.
how exactly are you supposed to enforce gun prohibition anyways? break into people's homes and take them away? it becomes a post ex facto law if you try and punish people for having guns that they've had for years.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45011521]I'd like change. That's why I want to keep my firearm.
Because it's a hell of a lot harder to tell armed protesters to go away, than it is to tell unarmed protesters to go away.[/QUOTE]
yeah i'm sure Occupy would have worked way better if everyone there had just bought a gun and shot police until corporate fascism went away. because as we all know only the most deeply humanist groups have randomly threatened mass violence to get what they wanted, so i'm sure that the example set in the past proves that they can be trusted to respect everyone's rights to the utmost degree.
[QUOTE=Winner;45011940]um, how the fuck does our culture "necessitate" them? do you find yourself shooting many people?[/QUOTE]
it was incorrect wording.
but guns still run deeply in certain sects of american culture. you don't have to like it, but it's still the truth, and you can't ignore that factor when creating legislation.
please don't crucify me over a typo.
and provide a practical solution to the problem while you're at it.
[QUOTE=joes33431;45011964]and provide a practical solution to the problem while you're at it.[/QUOTE]
Why should he? Every time someone does provide something, it's immediately put aside and the thread goes to a complete shitstorm until another person provides another one and repeat. Always looking for those strawmans, FP pls stop
[editline]6th June 2014[/editline]
You provide something instead of waiting for a post just to reject it instantly.
I just like shooting cans and shit in the middle of nowhere because it's amusing.
I don't need any more reasons to own highly destructive and deadly objects. :v:
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;45011992]Why should he? Every time someone does provide something, it's immediately put aside and the thread goes to a complete shitstorm until another person provides another one and repeat. Always looking for those strawmans, FP pls stop[/QUOTE]
because it's pointless complaining about the state of gun laws in the united states if the only forwarded solutions to the problem aren't actually going to solve them.
you want to talk about gun restrictions, sure, that's something worthy of discussion, but an outright ban (as some people in this thread seem to want) is doomed to fail.
[QUOTE=joes33431;45012061]because it's pointless complaining about the state of gun laws in the united states if the only forwarded solutions to the problem aren't actually going to solve them.
you want to talk about gun restrictions, sure, that's something worthy of discussion, but an outright ban (as some people in this thread seem to want) is doomed to fail.[/QUOTE]
Saying better gun laws doesn't imply total ban of them.
If you KNOW, if you are so SURE that the problems provided aren't going to solve them, then PROVIDE yourself an alternative, don't deny everything and put aside US's gun problem because there's too many people or because people are going to get mad or because it's in a century old paper that it's your right to bear arms.
You say the "forwarded solutions" aren't going to solve them, how can you be sure of that?
How can you be sure of a possible theory isn't accurate when that solution provided hasn't been tested yet?
Don't claim it's not going to solve them just because YOU think that way, your opinion is important but it's not a fact.
[QUOTE=joes33431;45012061]because it's pointless complaining about the state of gun laws in the united states if the only forwarded solutions to the problem aren't actually going to solve them.
you want to talk about gun restrictions, sure, that's something worthy of discussion, but an outright ban (as some people in this thread seem to want) is doomed to fail.[/QUOTE]
If you're doing this shit in absolutes, yeah of course it will fail. The idea isn't to clean up every gun ever, that is logistically impossible and any self-respecting gun control advocate knows that. The idea is to minimise the supply, slowly draining the black market to prevent criminals from obtaining them in the future. It's a slow process, but it's totally manageable with collection schemes such as amnesties.
Considering that almost every gun used in a crime was legal at some point (either stolen from a legitimate owner, straw purchased (questionably legal in that case), or vanished from the production line) removing the supply of legal firearms will eventually diminish the illegal arms. It doesn't mean every single gun ever is banned, you just need a legitimate reason for the firearm (work, hunting, recognised sports) and the gun must fall within certain restrictions. Basically no handguns outside of specific sports, no rifles outside of most shooting sports, and no home ownership for self defence because it becomes lesser required.
Why should we have to provide the means to enact the controls? We aren't the legislators, we don't have access to all the information required to take up the task of the multi-year long process of designing a system for the controls. We can say "you guys should probably restrict those things more" as much as we damn please, we don't have to have all the answers, just ideas to get the ball rolling.
[QUOTE=Gentry;45011609][IMG]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120731095634-declining-gun-ownership-chart-story-top.jpg[/IMG]
thank god you're a part of a backwards, old dying breed that is holding everything back and eventually the country can move on and join the rest of the civilised world[/QUOTE]
Can you show us a non-biased graph instead
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;45011992]You provide something instead of waiting for a post just to reject it instantly.[/QUOTE]
tackle the things that cause violence instead of trying to take away the tools to cause them.
a high rate of violent crime is a symptom of a sick society, and taking away the guns is just mitigating the damage instead of solving the issues.
so here are some things we can do to reduce violent crime that i posted in another gun-related thread:
[QUOTE]1. improve public schooling.
2. invest in infrastructure, esp. in poverty-stricken areas.
3. institute rehabilitative prison reform to drop recidivism rates and ultimately lower crime rates.
4. legalize marijuana (less fathers stuck in prison for non-violent offences).
5. provide better funding to police departments in crime-stricken areas.
6. institute new legislation to stop racism/racial profiling in police departments.
7. use outreach programs to try and mend the damaged relationship between minorities and the police.
8. use outreach programs to encourage academic interest and optimism in poverty-stricken areas.
9. raise the minimum wage.
10. nationalize health insurance.
11. provide financial education and foster entrepreneurship in poverty-stricken areas.
12. use tax breaks and incentives to foster small businesses in these areas.
13. attempt to change social stereotypes and expectations to make it easier for minority youths to self-create success and still be admired by both peers and competitors.
14. institute programs and campaigns to encourage collective action in crime-stricken and impoverished neighborhoods.
15. institute legislation and programs to weed out corruption in local officials.
16. overturn citizen's united and institute legislation to reduce the influence of money in politics.
17. use outreach programs and campaigns to increase voter turnout in local elections.
18. reduce financial and social barriers to campaigning for and getting into elected office.[/QUOTE]
most of these aim to tackle poverty, because poverty is very well correlated to crime.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.